Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.48 seconds)
Documents citing Manoj Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 2 May, 2016

Hsiidc vs Narender And Ors on 22 December, 2021

Undoubtedly, under Article 142 of The Constitution of India, the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is binding on all the courts, however, assessment of market value of the acquired land in a particular case in the absence of any declaration of law made on a particular point, is only a decision given on the facts of that particular case and such a decision merely on the question of fact is not binding. What is binding is the ratio of the decision and not any finding on facts, or the opinion of the court on any question which was only incidental in nature or was not required to be decided in a particular case. While assessing the market value of the acquire land, with highest respect, the Hon'ble Supreme Court does not as a ratio decidendi lays down a principle of law which is binding on all the courts. As correctly observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manoj Kumar's case (supra), such decision is only a piece of evidence produced for consideration of the court. However, in the appropriate cases, in the absence of any other evidence, the Presiding Judge may not be left with any choice but to rely upon the same in the absence of any other reliable or relevant evidence.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - A Kshetarpal - Full Document

Jai Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 29 March, 2022

In Manoj Kumar vs. State of Haryana, (2018) 13 SCC 96, while hearing appeals from the judgment of this Court with respect to acquisition of land in revenue estate of Jagadhri, Jarodha Gulab Nagar and Bhatoli, the court assessed the market value. In the aforesaid case, the Court primarily held that outright reliance on a previous assessment made by a Court while assessing the market value of the acquired land by different notification is not appropriate/reasonable. In the facts of the aforesaid case, the Supreme Court after relying upon various judgments held that in the facts of the aforesaid case, deduction is required to be applied. The aforesaid judgment in the humble opinion of this Court, is not applicable in the present facts.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Manju Devi vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 1 December, 2022

The defence of the State was that an Anganwari Worker has to work from 8.45 AM to 2.45 PM and have to discharge their duties. There were instructions dated 07.02.2012 of the Government of India that elected Members of the Panchayat and local bodies would take them away from the core activities and would affect the delivery of the services under the Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS). Similarly, the Director, Women & Child Development Department, Haryana had also issued instructions vide letter dated 31.03.2016, clarifying that Anganwari Workers could contest elections but after elections they cannot work on 2 posts. It was accordingly justified that the show cause notice was issued on 21.04.2016 giving an option to the writ petitioner as to which of the services she would opt for. Another learned Single Judge has taken a 2 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 06-12-2022 00:41:13 ::: LPA-384-2018 (O&M), LPA-1488-2016 (O&M), LPA-466-2019 (O&M) & CWP-32277-2019 3 similar view in CWP-6332-2016 titled Smt. Manoj Kumari Vs. State of Haryana & others, decided on 12.07.2016.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - G S Sandhawalia - Full Document

Vikas Mehta vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 8 August, 2022

"6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, further contends that the occurrence in this case pertains to the year 1984, to be precise, February 17, 1984 and a period of 16 years has already gone by. Petitioner has already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of one and half decades. Petitioner was 40 years of age at the time of occurrence and further that he was already undergone sentence for a period of 25 days. For the contention that petitioner should be dealt with leniently in these circumstances his counsel relies upon Manoj Kumar v. State of Haryana, 1998 (1) For Subsequent orders see CRM-39317-2022 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

National Highway Authority Of India vs Inderjeet And Others on 15 March, 2021

The execution application (Annexure P-6) was then filed for realization of the said amount @ `50,000/- per sq. yard, on which objections were filed by the petitioner-authority that the commercial rates were @ 4 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 25-08-2021 07:44:27 ::: Civil Revision Nos.1994 to 1999 and 2008 to 2010 (O&M) -5- ***** `33,500/- per sq. meter. Resultantly, the impugned order has been passed, wherein the Executing Court has rightly dismissed the objections on the ground that the circle rate being @ `50,000/- per sq. yard, the Executing Court could not go beyond the decree. This Court has also examined the award dated 26.02.2015, wherein in Category-D, there is a specific mention about Khasra No.208//14 and the cumulative reading of the arguments, which had been raised before the Court, was that the acquired land fell on the Dubchick to Gorata Chowk, by-pass Hodal and was in the revenue estate of village Bedhal Patti. The same is sought to be misconstrued by the petitioner-authority to the extent that the commercial rate for the said area is only @ `40,000/- per sq. yard. It is not in dispute that the land was acquired for the purposes of expansion of the Highway and merely because of some part of it fell in the revenue estate of village Bedha Patti, as such, would not lead to the conclusion that the value was less and the circle rate of Hodal, as such, would not be applicable to it. It is well settled principle that the land falling on the National Highway always has more value than the land which might be situated 2 Kilometers inside and, therefore, the collector rate for the revenue estate of village Bedha Patti, Hodal, as such, may be @ `40,000/- per sq. yard, but is for the land which is situated away from the Highway. The land of the landowners in the present case(s) is very much acquired for the purposes of expansion of the Highway, therefore, the petitioner-authority cannot, as such, take benefit of the fact that the land falls in the other revenue estate. Reliance can be placed upon the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Manoj Kumar vs. State of Haryana, 2018(2) RCR 815, wherein this aspect has been considered that the land abutting the National 5 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 25-08-2021 07:44:27 ::: Civil Revision Nos.1994 to 1999 and 2008 to 2010 (O&M) -6- ***** Highways would make material difference in value and would fetch higher value than the land situated in the interiors. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - G S Sandhawalia - Full Document

Manoj Yadav vs State Of Haryana And Others on 1 November, 2021

This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties. The fact that the wife of the petitioner is 8 months pregnant stands verified as is apparent from the reply filed by the State. With respect to the fact that there are 4 other persons in the family of the petitioner, it would be relevant to note that the brother as well as the sister of the petitioner are not residing alongwith wife of the petitioner. The parents of the petitioner are stated to be more than 60 years of age and thus, the presence of the petitioner would be necessary for the purpose of delivery of the child of the petitioner. With respect to the legal offence of murder and kidnapping, this Court in Manoj Kumar's case (supra) has held as under:-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - V Bahl - Full Document

Manoj Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Others on 24 January, 2023

In Manoj Kumar's case though this 4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 27-05-2023 23:48:50 ::: Neutral Citation No:= CWP-22058-2022 5 court noticed the ceiling of Rs.3,500/-per month in respect of the income of dependent, while accepting the writ petition, but ignored the same on the ground that the patient was suffering from deadly disease and relied upon the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. M.P.Ojha" relating to the flexible approach while analyzing the dependency upon government employee. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this decision has categorically laid down that the expression "wholly dependent" has to be construed in terms of the object of the applicable rules, therefore, in the given facts of the case in hand as well as the applicable rules, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the father of the petitioner would not fall within the definition of dependent considering his monthly pension of Rs.24,804/-. Thus, the argument of the learned counsel that the petitioner would fall within the definition of dependent as contained in Punjab Medical Attendance Rules, 1940 is apparently misplaced.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - M Bajaj - Full Document

Rajender Kumar vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 30 July, 2018

In Manoj Kumar's case, supra, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment vide judgment and order of conviction and 2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 12-08-2018 09:36:13 ::: CWP No.18195 of 2018(O&M) 3 sentence dated 14/16.10.2016 under Sections 302/120-B/34/201/176/202 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The petitioner therein sought parole on the ground that his wife is in the family way and expected date of delivery was medically certified, and therefore, the Division Bench held that there was no reason for the authority to decline the prayer for release on parole. It has been observed by the Division Bench as follows:-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - R N Raina - Full Document
1   2 Next